3 ms·

The biggest problem with Globalisation is that it doesn't contribute to global economic development. It merely outsources manual labour and less profitable/des

The biggest problem with Globalisation is that it doesn't contribute to global economic development. It merely outsources manual labour and less profitable/desirable work from rich countries to less-developed countries because of the price difference in labour. Growing up I always imagined a world where the big cities of Africa could be just as developed as those in Europe, Asia or America. Instead we've been given a new form of colonialism where developed countries take the best minds from the developing world, and outsource all the work we don't want to poor countries. This of course hurts our working class, as well as contributing nothing to the actual development of poor countries. So it's really no surprise that our working class is rebelling, as well as creating unrest in the developing world.

haltingthoughts 9y ago
You sure that globalism has contributed nothing to the development of poor countries? The number of people in poverty has decreased drastically over the past half century. Do you have any other candidates other than trade liberalization? https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/ https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/
- Mikeb85 9y ago
  That's a terrible definition of extreme poverty. Also, inequality matters. It's nice that the crumbs poor people receive are getting bigger, but things like social unrest, wars, revolutions, crime, famine are due to inequality and unequal distribution of resources. Being poor isn't a problem by itself, it's the other things that come with it which are a problem. Having cell phones and making more than $1.90 per day didn't prevent the revolutions in Libya and Syria, and subsequent deaths/displacement of millions. Actual development and reducing inequality is massively important.
  - haltingthoughts 9y ago
    How is that a terrible definition? What do you propose? What metric do you want? Infant mortality? Life expectancy? Subjective happiness? Unrest? Hunger? Global inequality? All of them are drastically down globally. Within country inequity? Flat. https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction/ https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction/ https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/ https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/

haltingthoughts 9y ago

You sure that globalism has contributed nothing to the development of poor countries? The number of people in poverty has decreased drastically over the past half century. Do you have any other candidates other than trade liberalization? https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/ https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/

Mikeb85 9y ago
That's a terrible definition of extreme poverty. Also, inequality matters. It's nice that the crumbs poor people receive are getting bigger, but things like social unrest, wars, revolutions, crime, famine are due to inequality and unequal distribution of resources. Being poor isn't a problem by itself, it's the other things that come with it which are a problem. Having cell phones and making more than $1.90 per day didn't prevent the revolutions in Libya and Syria, and subsequent deaths/displacement of millions. Actual development and reducing inequality is massively important.
- haltingthoughts 9y ago
  How is that a terrible definition? What do you propose? What metric do you want? Infant mortality? Life expectancy? Subjective happiness? Unrest? Hunger? Global inequality? All of them are drastically down globally. Within country inequity? Flat. https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction/ https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction/ https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/ https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/